Revelation resignation
Labour's General Secretary Peter Watt has resigned after the . Mr Watt told a meeting of officers of Labour's National Executive Committee that he had known about this arrangement but had not known that it might be illegal.
Ironically, it was Peter Watt who had to deal with the fallout of the cash for honours allegations. Gordon Brown will, no doubt, hope that his resignation draws a line under this embarrassing revelation but will hardly be pleased that his early days as leader have been damaged by another row about a lack of transparency in funding the party.
I'm 
Comments
Peter Watt broke the law. What is the punishment? Are we expected to take the government by their word "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"
Peter Watt will not end up in court.
"had not known that it might be illegal.". This is patent nonsense. Each party was clearly warned about this from the Electoral Commission in an email sent last year. Attached was the guidance on donations and to quote the post on LibDemVoice:
"Attached was a draft new edition of the Electoral Commission’s guidance on donations. This is what paragraph 4.29 of the document said:
If the original source of the donation is someone other than the individual or organisation that transfers the donation to the party, the individual or organisation making the transfer is acting as an agent for the original donor. Where a person acts as an agent in making a donation, they must ensure that the party is given all the relevant information as listed at paragraph 5.4 (s. 54 (6)). Transferring a donation to an agent rather than directly to a party must not be used as an attempt to evade the controls on permissibility and transparency.
In other words: a donor can’t hide a donation by passing it on through other people. This information was in previous editions of the guidance, and was also (using exactly the same words) in the final version published by the Electoral Commission (and available on their website, see page 19)."
As ignorance is no defence in law for the great unwashed like myself, I will be watching with interest for two things.
1. Will Mr Watt's actions be deemed to be unlawful?
2. If they are, will he be prosecuted?
Shades of Peter Mandelson perhaps?
Please, can someone start diarising these situations so they stand permanently on the record? It's not good enough for the problem to be a moment's buzz, put on the back burner or buried in the long grass while someone gets an enquiry started and reports sometime after the next election, by which time it's all been forgotten about, these are serious situations which must be brought back to haunt those guilty of such serious misdemeanours forever. We have a right to expect excellence and all we're getting is platitudes. We have a right to expect to expect responsability, yet all we get is prevarication. We have a right to expect parliamentary accountability, but all we get are immature spats over the dispatch box, which make for fine soundbites, but do nothing to resolve the situation.
Of the 352 Labour MPs, only 95 hold any kind of ministerial responsibility whatsoever, and yet those 95 fill 121 of the 151 state offices (the rest are members of the House of Lords), with most of the double-hatting being done by full Ministers.
Either there are 257 unemployable MPs, or there are a minimum 56 potential political assassins. Either way, there's a decent few spare to replace the casualties, so there's no need for the PM to keep expressing his confidence in Tom, Dick or Harriet, "he's essential, he can't resign", as the question is now becoming whether it's still possible to have any confidence in Gordon the Red Engine, who admirers of the late Rev Awdrey will remember was full of bluster but short on performance.
It's become the way for a senior underling to go, and however much that's to be applauded, it's insufficient.
How can a businessman (builder) with a spare £100k to donate to political parties be allowed to live in a council house.
Mr Brown says he did not know, why not
Would it be easier to ask Labour, who did NOT get money from Abrahams/Martin?
Bravo to Jel #4
Wished I could write like that!
Does anyone have the telephone number for Assistant Commissioner Yates of the Yard? Perhaps this time the CPS can be convinced that it IS in the public interest to air these breaches of the law in court?
Ignorance of the law is no defence. If politics is above the law - then I am calling in The A Team.
So, Harriet Harman took the money in "all good faith". Is this shorthand for "Harriet couldn't give two hoots where the money came from " ?
You have to sympathise with Gordon, dont you ? I've no doubt he's an honest, moral man, but he seems to have taken over a party, many of who's top people dont seem to be so utterly weighed down by moral scruples that they cant walk upright.